Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17
review-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-05-26-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-05-26 | |
Requested | 2014-05-15 | |
Authors | Gregory Bumgardner | |
I-D last updated | 2014-05-26 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -14
by Mary Barnes
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) Genart Telechat review of -17 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) Tsvdir Telechat review of -14 by Magnus Westerlund (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Alexey Melnikov |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 17 (document currently at 18) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2014-05-26 |
review-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-05-26-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-17 Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov Review Date: May 26, 2014 IETF LC End Date: May 26, 2014 Summary: Nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. Major issues: In the document, I am seeing: 5.1.1.1. Version (V) [And in several other similar sections] The protocol version number for this message is 0. 5.2.3.2. Handling AMT Messages A gateway that conforms to this specification MUST ignore any message with a Version field value other than zero. 5.3.3.1. Handling AMT Messages A relay that conforms to this specification MUST ignore any message with a Version field value other than zero. This might not actually be an issue, if it was discussed in the WG. But I am wondering if the WG thought about versioning, backward compatibility and other related issues. How likely is it that a new version of AMT is going to be designed? At the moment the document reads like "we have a stub field for future versions, but we haven't thought about how they are going to be handled yet". Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: 5.3.3.4. Handling a Membership Update Message o The computed checksums for the encapsulated IP datagram and its payload MUST match the values contained therein. Checksum computation and verification varies by protocol; See [RFC0791] for IPv4, [RFC3376] for IGMPv3, and [RFC4443] for MLD (ICMPv6). Any recommendation for IPv6 or is it covered by one of the other choices?